| 1 |
On Thu, 2021-09-30 at 08:40 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Would it be possible to have some switch (e.g. --style=legacy) that |
| 5 |
> controls this new vs. the old behaviour? Would perhaps allow |
| 6 |
> applications that parse the output to work via setting this in the |
| 7 |
> global opts. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Patches welcome. It shouldn't be hard, my commit shows which files need |
| 10 |
to be edited to alter the prefixes and how to pass them into ebd. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> In addition, much like the colour map, how do you see this change in |
| 14 |
> light of eclasses, init-scripts, etc. that also use the same scheme as |
| 15 |
> Portage at the moment? Would you expect to change those too at some |
| 16 |
> point? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Eclasses are supposed to use standard einfo, elog... functions, so they |
| 19 |
should just work™. If someone's reinventing the wheel, it's not my |
| 20 |
problem. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Init scripts aren't supposed to be used inside the PM, so that's out of |
| 23 |
scope. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Final question, am I understanding correctly that normal lines are not |
| 26 |
> prefixed with something? Would it be, for consistency, alignment, and |
| 27 |
> certainty of selecting rows something to use a prefix for those lines |
| 28 |
> too (assuming they aren't at this point)? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I don't know, we've never done that. I suppose it would be possible but |
| 31 |
it is even more controversial and unlike the proposed changes, it would |
| 32 |
actually require mangling the process output. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Michał Górny |
Archives